HM Attorney General for England And Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2022] EWHC 380 (QB) (22 February 2022)

HM Attorney General for England And Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2022] EWHC 380 (QB) (22 February 2022)

The Attorney General failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that holding the OPEN part of the interim relief hearing in public would cause real damage to national security or X's rights. The open justice principle requires that the hearing be public unless a compelling reason for privacy is established, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 380
Parties
Claimant: HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL for ENGLAND and WALES; Defendant: BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION; Special Advocates: Special Advocates (Zubair Ahmad QC, Dominic Lewis)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Injunction (interim Relief) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Open/closed Hearing
Outcome
Application for private hearing refused; OPEN part of interim relief hearing to be held in public.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Breach of Confidence, National Security, Article 10 ECHR, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Closed Material Procedures
Media Law National Security Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Breach of Confidence +6 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL for ENGLAND and WALES

Claimant

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Defendant

Special Advocates (Zubair Ahmad QC, Dominic Lewis)

Special Advocates

Procedural Posture

Injunction (interim Relief) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Open/closed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the OPEN part of the interim relief hearing should be held in public or private
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General has established a compelling reason to derogate from the open justice principle
  3. 3 Whether publication of information not identifying X would cause real damage to national security

Ratio Decidendi

The Attorney General failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that holding the OPEN part of the interim relief hearing in public would cause real damage to national security or X's rights. The open justice principle requires that the hearing be public unless a compelling reason for privacy is established, which was not met on the evidence presented. The fact that some information was already in the public domain and the lack of particularity in the Attorney's claim further undermined the case for a private hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for private hearing refused; OPEN part of interim relief hearing to be held in public.

Orders

  • The OPEN part of the interim relief hearing on 1-2 March 2022 will be conducted in public.
  • Parties to agree a memorandum identifying information that can and cannot be referred to in public to avoid identification of X.